-32-
persuaded that Michelsen met there with customers, clients, or
patients in the normal course of business. Nor does the record
establish that any part of the residence, including the garage,
was in an “unattached separate structure”.
We also are not persuaded that the exception was met for
either remaining year in issue. In order for a taxpayer to
establish use on a “regular” basis, the business use must be more
than occasional or incidental. See Jackson v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 696, 700 (1981). In order for a taxpayer to establish
that use of a portion of a dwelling is “exclusive”, the portion
must be used only for business purposes. See Sam Goldberger,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1532, 1556-1557 (1987); Hefti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-128; see also Irwin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-490. See generally sec.
1.280A-2(g)(1), Proposed Income Tax Regs., 45 Fed. Reg. 52404
(Aug. 7, 1980). The failure of a taxpayer to establish that the
use of a portion of a dwelling is both “regular” and “exclusive”
is fatal to the taxpayer’s claim that such use falls within the
exception of section 280A(c)(1). See Sam Goldberger, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1556-1557. Although the record
establishes that Michelsen performed at the residence a lot of
work for the Nature’s Touch stores, petitioners have not offered
sufficient evidence regarding the amount of time and nature of
the work conducted anywhere in the premises so as to establish
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007